Chunnu Thakur @ Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73706 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2019 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Chunnu Thakur @ Rakesh Kumar Son of Late Kailash Thakur R/O MohallaGannipur , P.S.- Kazimohammadpur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2.

The petitioner is seeking for bail in connection with Sadar (East) P.S. Case No.403 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 414, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26(ii), 35 of Arms Act. 3.

As per the FIR, informant got information that petitioner and one other co-accused is running illegal business of illicit liquor in rented house of co-accused Rajiv Kumar. On that information, police reached there and arrested seven persons and recovered one pistol loaded with two cartridges and a empty magazine from the possession of Rajiv Kumar. One pistol loaded with cartridge, live cartridges and cash of Rs.8,79,600/-, diary, 13 mobile phones, one motorcycle and one car were also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73706 of 2024(2) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 recovered from the spot. The apprehended persons disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of his associate. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. Petitioner has been made accused merely on the basis of statement of apprehended co-accused persons. Petitioner has thirty three criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 27.04.2024. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the criminal history of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer of bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T